Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Cook, Summer B
• Cleary, Christopher J

Titel

Progression of Blood Flow Restricted Resistance Training in Older Adults at Risk of Mobility Limitations

Ist Teil von

• Frontiers in physiology, 2019-06, Vol.10, p.738-738

Ort / Verlag

Switzerland: Frontiers Media S.A

Erscheinungsjahr

2019

Quelle

EZB Electronic Journals Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training leads to increased muscle mass and strength but the progression leading to adaptations may be different as strength gains are often to a lesser magnitude than high-load (HL) training. The impact of training loads and repetitions on older adults' muscle mass and strength following BFR or HL training was evaluated. Twenty-one older adults (67-90 years) classified as being at risk of mobility limitations were randomly assigned to HL ( = 11) or BFR ( = 10) knee extension (KE) and flexion (KF) training twice per week for 12 weeks. Strength was measured with 10-repetition maximum (10-RM) tests and isometric contractions. Cross-sectional area (CSA) of the quadriceps and hamstrings was measured. HL and BFR interventions increased 10-RM KF and isometric strength ( < 0.05) and hamstrings CSA increased an average of 4.8 ± 5.9% after HL and BFR training (time main effect < 0.01). There were no differences between the training groups (time x group interactions > 0.05). The rate of progression of KF training load and repetitions was comparable (time × group interactions of each variable > 0.05). The groups averaged an increase of 0.50 ± 25 kg⋅week and 1.8 ± 0.1.7 repetitions⋅week of training (time main effects < 0.05). The HL training group experienced greater improvements in KE 10-RM strength than the BFR group (60.7 ± 36.0% vs. 35.3 ± 25.5%; = 0.03). In both groups, isometric KE strength increased 17.3 ± 18.5% ( = 0.001) and there were no differences between groups ( = 0.24). Quadriceps CSA increased (time main effect < 0.01) and to similar magnitudes (time x group interaction = 0.62) following HL (6.5 ± 3.1%) and BFR training (7.8 ± 8.2%). The HL group experienced accelerated progression of load when compared to BFR (0.90 ± 0.60 kg⋅week vs. 30 ± 0.21 kg⋅week ; = 0.006) but was not different when expressed in relative terms. BFR training progressed at a rate of 3.6 ± 1.3 repetitions⋅week while the HL group progressed at 2.2 ± 0.43 repetitions⋅week ( = 0.003). HL training led to greater increases in KE 10-RM and it may be attributed to the greater load and/or faster rate of progression of the load throughout the 12-week training period and the specificity of the testing modality. Incorporating systematic load progression throughout BFR training periods should be employed to lead to maximal strength gains.